Article

Is a mass immunization program for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 good value for money? Evidence from the Canadian Experience

Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.49). 08/2010; 28(38):6210-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.07.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In response to the pandemic H1N1 influenza 2009 outbreak, many jurisdictions undertook mass immunization programs that were among the largest in recent history. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the mass H1N1 immunization program in Ontario, Canada's most populous province (population 13,000,000). This analysis suggests that a mass immunization program as carried out in Ontario and many other high-income health care systems in response to H1N1 2009 was effective in preventing influenza cases and health care resource use and was also highly cost-effective despite the substantial program cost.

1 Bookmark
 · 
114 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to evaluate the effect of geographical location of residence on disease burden in Canadian First Nations (FN) populations during the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1). Descriptive statistics and regression analysis of data for cases of pandemic A(H1N1) infection and hospitalization in the province of Manitoba, Canada, were conducted to estimate the odds of hospitalization and delay in time-to-hospitalization for on-reserve and off-reserve FN populations, while considering their geographical proximity to urban centers. We found that on-reserve FN individuals experienced a longer delay between infection and hospitalization compared to off-reserve FN individuals (p<0.001). The average fraction of FN cases that experienced a delay longer than 4 days for hospitalization was 20% higher for on-reserve compared to off-reserve residence. The odds of hospitalization were twice as high for FN people living on-reserve as compared to off-reserve (odds ratio=2.34; 95% CI: 1.16-4.73). Given the independent effect of on-reserve residency, higher disease burden among FN people cannot be attributed entirely to limited healthcare access due to remoteness from urban centers.
    Health & Place 12/2013; 26C:53-59. DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.005 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated the association between seasonal influenza vaccination in South Korea and socioeconomic status (SES) as well as other potential related factors. The study was based on data obtained in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2010 to 2011. Education level and household income were used as indicators for SES. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate SES and other demographic variables as related factors for influenza vaccination, the primary outcome. Higher household income was positively associated with higher vaccine uptake in the younger (19-49 years) group [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.23], whereas the low-income and low-education group had increased vaccination coverage than the middle-income and middle-education group in the older (≥ 50 years) group (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.69). Current smokers tend to be unvaccinated in all age groups. Among individuals aged ≥ 50, older age, mild to moderate alcohol consumption, regular exercise, and having co-morbidities were positively associated with vaccination, while those who self-reported their health status as good were less likely to be vaccinated. The relationship between SES and seasonal influenza vaccination coverage differed between the age groups throughout the adult South Korean population. Public health policies need to address these inequalities.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0117305. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117305 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent pertussis outbreaks have prompted re-examination of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) strategies, when immunization is not immediately protective. Chemoprophylaxis is recommended to household contacts; however there are concerns of clinical failure and significant adverse events, especially with erythromycin among infants who have the highest disease burden. Newer macrolides offer fewer side effects at higher drug costs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of PEP strategies from the health care payer perspective. A Markov model was constructed to examine 4 mutually exclusive strategies: erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, or no intervention, stratified by age group of contacts ("infant", "child", and "adult"). Transition probabilities, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the literature. Chronic neurologic sequelae were modeled over a lifetime, with costs and QALYs discounted at 5%. Associated health outcomes and costs were compared, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated in 2012 Canadian dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the degree of uncertainty in the results. Azithromycin offered the highest QALYs in all scenarios. While this was the dominant strategy among infants, it produced an ICER of $16,963 per QALY among children and $2,415 per QALY among adults. Total QALYs with azithromycin were 19.7 for a 5-kg infant, 19.4 for a 10-year-old child, and 18.8 for a 30-year-old adult. The costs of azithromycin PEP among infants, children and adults were $1,976, $132 and $90, respectively. While results were sensitive to changes in PEP effectiveness (11% to 87%), disease transmission (variable among age groups) and hospitalization costs ($379 to $59,644), the choice of strategy remained unchanged. Pertussis PEP is a cost-effective strategy compared with no intervention and plays an important role in contact management, potentially in outbreak situations. From a healthcare payer perspective, azithromycin is the optimal strategy among all contact groups.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(3):e0119271. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0119271 · 3.53 Impact Factor